Mueller is not quoted in any of those links. An unnamed source "says they were told Trump was not a criminal target at that time." All three articles seem to be going off the same source. You may as well have linked to Elmo singing about the letter C.

Are you planning to concede that you were, at best, stating your point extremely sloppily, and that what you meant to say is that nine months ago an anonymous source claimed that Mueller told the president he was not, at that time, a criminal target? Or do you wish, instead, to offer a single link of "Muellers words to the press"?

Quote:

My second prediction, you can not show me Mueller saying Trump is an active criminal target of the investigation.

Of course I cannot. Fortunately, I never claimed that Mueller has said that in public. Mueller says almost nothing in public, which is a big part of why I was so skeptical of your claim.

Quote:

Like another poster said, " You're going to need a bigger boat " Trump has been found guilty of nothing, Left Hand. Heck, he has not even been charged.

You're aware that that quote is about how, when you're gonna take down a powerful, vicious predator, you need to be well-prepared, right? Because I think it's a great quote for the occasion. It's just that Mueller's a goddamned battleship.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ancient Erudite

Okay, not a target. With each passing month, Mueller's hand looks weaker.

Pretty much this. We've all been able to see more of them than Mueller would probably prefer. His preferred number would likely be zero.

Mueller has had some of his cards turned over for him, including the accidentally(?) non-redacted filing. Likely Mueller does not actually want potential targets knowing exactly what cards he does or does not hold at this time.

If he can truthfully state something that muddies whether or not he has a particular card in his hand then his position is strengthened whatever hand he actually holds.

Look-- let's be sensible here. There are many here that would walk over broken glass if it had to a Trump charge but 2+ years in with a team of people on it, 100,000,000+ documents examined, and multiple interviews, he has not even been charged.

Now, stay with me for a moment, if Mueller had anything, don't you all agree he would have used it by now? At the very least before mid-terms.

He has nothing. He'll shake the trees and kick the tires a bit more, but when he shows his cards, which should also include full disclosure that he followed the law while doing it, I expect a badly hyped movie to be shot down, and those hoping it would lead to something to quickly turning on the man.

Others on this site are far better debaters, explainers, and thinkers than I am, so I trust you'll have more than enough fun with them showing you the error of your thoughts.

Instead, I'd like to address the length of time/documents examined/interviews conducted point you think you're making, and I'd like to address it with one word:

When we get to the length of time and expense that Benghazi took - when we approach numbers in what John Oliver calls "Stupid Watergate" that approach the republicans' investment in seeing a chance to take down Hillary - then I might find your objections at least semi-legit. And would it be correct this presume that , if Trump is never personally punished or convicted, that Clinton be afforded the same respect?

__________________
I can't help being a gorgeous fiend. It's just the card I drew.

When we get to the length of time and expense that Benghazi took - when we approach numbers in what John Oliver calls "Stupid Watergate" that approach the republicans' investment in seeing a chance to take down Hillary - then I might find your objections at least semi-legit. And would it be correct this presume that , if Trump is never personally punished or convicted, that Clinton be afforded the same respect?

What you're clearly not understanding is that Benghazi involved investigating Democrats, especially Hillary Clinton and is therefore completely justifiable. The Mueller investigation is investigating Dear Leader, and is therefore treason.

When we get to the length of time and expense that Benghazi took - when we approach numbers in what John Oliver calls "Stupid Watergate" that approach the republicans' investment in seeing a chance to take down Hillary - then I might find your objections at least semi-legit. And would it be correct this presume that , if Trump is never personally punished or convicted, that Clinton be afforded the same respect?

New Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Lindsey Graham, is on top of those Clinton emails! He will be examining “the FBI’s handling of its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant applications targeting former Trump campaign aide Carter Page.”

New Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Lindsey Graham, is on top of those Clinton emails! He will be examining “the FBI’s handling of its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant applications targeting former Trump campaign aide Carter Page.”

Democrats have greeted Graham's agenda with well-deserved mockery.

Trump has already defunded the FBI (though his beloved Shutdown). It's starting to look as though Graham has been instructed by his Russian handlers to finish off the Bureau through these "investigations."

Buzzfeed strikes back.
The article includes a signed Letter of Intent, dated 28 October 2015, and some artist renderings. The LOI is quite specific about various terms of agreement.

Quote:

The president and his representatives have dismissed the project as little more than a notion — a rough plan led by Trump’s then-lawyer, Michael Cohen, and his associate Felix Sater, of which Trump and his family said they were only loosely aware as the election campaign gathered pace.

On Monday, his lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, said “the proposal was in the earliest stage,” and he went on to tell the New Yorker that “no plans were ever made. There were no drafts. Nothing in the file.”

However, hundreds of pages of business documents, emails, text messages, and architectural plans, obtained by BuzzFeed News over a year of reporting, tell a very different story. Trump Tower Moscow was a richly imagined vision of upscale splendor on the banks of the Moscow River.

The fact is this investigation has had partisan people removed from it. It's clear the FBI acted questionably ( Did you read those tests ) and obtained the dossier that might have aided and paid for by money funned from the Clinton camp.

We have not even heard Trump's legal defense in a formal setting, and that's because after spending lots of taxpayer money and time, he has not been charged with anything. Re-read that, no charges against the President. This isn't Watergate, with video or audio proof. What Mueller is trying to do is get Trump to testify, and hope for questions that will make it sound like he's contradictory.

Quick question for you. If Mueller had anything on Trump, don't you think we would have heard something by not? Yes or no?

Come back to me when the President is actually charged with something.

To close, I think Mueller and his team needs to show the full public disclosure on his methods and actions to assure the public rules and laws were followed.

When we get to the length of time and expense that Benghazi took - when we approach numbers in what John Oliver calls "Stupid Watergate" that approach the republicans' investment in seeing a chance to take down Hillary - then I might find your objections at least semi-legit. And would it be correct this presume that , if Trump is never personally punished or convicted, that Clinton be afforded the same respect?

Its clear Clinton broke the law. One can not send classified information over an insecure server.

One can not delete / destroy 33,000 governmental documents.

And finally one cannot lie under oath.

Don't you see some legal issues here? Clinton was essential exonerated by the FBI before the investigation started, but Comeny did make it clear that she sent classified information over a private server, which Clinton said she did not. Put her under oath, and let's see what happens. She's nailed.

If this was investigated under the level of what Mueller was doing, lots of people would be in legal jeopardy, and Clinton would be found guilty. Destroying the server implises she was hiding something.

See the difference? Instead, Mueller is nailing people for not paying taxes years ago, and lying trying to cover their tracks.

One can only ponder the pro quo from Clinton who accepted something like 25 million from Iran and Saudi Arabia. Did she make " deals " as the Secretary of State telling various nations she is going to run for President and based on many models win? This is a question only an investigation can determine. While Clinton is out of politics; I bet many who were on her team in communication with Hillary about who knows what did some wrong too as still in it.

The fact is this investigation has had partisan people removed from it.

You are. For the record, partisan people SHOULD be removed from investigations, so that's a good thing that happened.

Quote:

It's clear the FBI acted questionably ( Did you read those tests )

Texts, right? Yeah, that was pretty dumb of those agents. However, it doesn't indicate any compromise of the investigation.

Quote:

and obtained the dossier that might have aided and paid for by money funned from the Clinton camp.

Funded, right? Again, irrelevant. Facts don't care who their mama is.

Quote:

We have not even heard Trump's legal defense in a formal setting, and that's because after spending lots of taxpayer money and time, he has not been charged with anything. Re-read that, no charges against the President. This isn't Watergate, with video or audio proof. What Mueller is trying to do is get Trump to testify, and hope for questions that will make it sound like he's contradictory.

Quick question for you. If Mueller had anything on Trump, don't you think we would have heard something by not? Yes or no?

He needs to show his cards when he's ready, and not a second before. Once he's ready to issue his report, he'll do so, and that will be the point where we decide questions such as:
1) Is there evidence of criminal wrongdoing on the part of Individual 1?
2) If so, can a sitting president be criminally charged?
3) Also if so, is impeachment and removal from office the appropriate remedy?

****

You're done dancing, right? As near as I can tell, the point of your dance was that you realized your original statement was just flat-ass wrong, that you don't have Mueller's words to the press. Why you failed to admit error is on you, and I won't speculate as to your motives, but I'm happy to let you save face, and I can pretend that you stood up and admitted when you were wrong.

Buzzfeed strikes back.
The article includes a signed Letter of Intent, dated 28 October 2015, and some artist renderings. The LOI is quite specific about various terms of agreement.

Having never built, financed nor planned a skyscraper anywhere in the world I'm going to suggest neither Buzzfeed nor I can tell you the exact stage where a project goes from early pipedream to a serious development. As I understand it funding was not in place, neither was it close to planning permission. I would think the work that DID go into the Trump Moscow project would be described as serious if you or I were carrying it all out, but for the Trump organization it was quite possibly the very early stages indeed.

[B]Its clear Clinton broke the law. One can not send classified information over an insecure server.

One certainly shouldn't, but one often does. I mean, both Jared and Ivanka used private servers and unregistered email accounts for government business. Both Colin Powell (as SoS) and Mike Pence (as Governor) used their own AOL accounts for government business. The Presidennt continues to use an unsecured and almost certainly compromised cellphone for government business.

Shall we prosecute all of them? Which law shall we use?

Quote:

One can not delete / destroy 33,000 governmental documents.

One can if one has permission to. Which she did. I mean, I understand why one might think she personally deleted them in response to the subpoena but if one derives one's information from more factual sources than FoxNews one might discover that that narrative was not a true one.

Quote:

And finally one cannot lie under oath.

Which she didn't do. But which several members of Trump's campaign team did do. And potentially Jeff Sessions (although he fired the guy who was starting the perjury investigation on him) and Jared (who definitely lied several times on his security clearance form, an act which in itself is a felony punishable by sizable fine and/or up to a year in prison) and Don Jr.

Trump himself, of course, hasn't lied under oath...because (as his own lawyers have said) he can't testify under oath because he can't be expected not to lie.

Quote:

Don't you see some legal issues here? Clinton was essential exonerated by the FBI before the investigation started

No they didn't. Clinton is probably the most thoroughly investigated person in Washington.

Quote:

but Comeny did make it clear that she sent classified information over a private server, which Clinton said she did not.

Cite?

Quote:

Put her under oath, and let's see what happens. She's nailed.

She's spent many, many hours under oath. And hasn't lied. Or been "nailed". Most of the "gotcha" stuff Clinton detractors seem to think exists is actually wholly manufactured nonsense, which is why it never actually gets used in legal situations (see also: all the "reasons" Obama was going to be impeached).

Quote:

If this was investigated under the level of what Mueller was doing, lots of people would be in legal jeopardy, and Clinton would be found guilty.

Clinton has been far more thoroughly investigated than Trump has.

Quote:

Destroying the server implises she was hiding something.

No it doesn't.

Quote:

See the difference? Instead, Mueller is nailing people for not paying taxes years ago, and lying trying to cover their tracks.

Mostly people seem to be getting nailed for lying under oath, something you've very clearly stated is a bad and illegal thing that should be punished. If you really mean that, you should be all for the Mueller investigation.

Quote:

One can only ponder the pro quo from Clinton who accepted something like 25 million from Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Cite?

Quote:

Did she make " deals " as the Secretary of State telling various nations she is going to run for President and based on many models win? This is a question only an investigation can determine.

In that case you should be happy that Trump is being investigated, as there already exists substantial evidence of his campaign receiving monetary and non-monetary aid from foreign sources. Given that that's a lot more solid than the "just asking questions" basis you're using, again, you should be all for the Mueller investigation.

Quote:

While Clinton is out of politics; I bet many who were on her team in communication with Hillary about who knows what did some wrong too as still in it.

So why not investigate it?

Because law enforcement doesn't accept "wild and incoherent speculation I pulled out of my backside" as sufficient grounds for starting investigation.

AE, I'm going to assume that you're arguing in good faith and expound on the above point for you. My professional title is eDiscovery analyst. I'm the guy that collects, sorts, searches, and otherwise handles any electronic evidence in litigation. I've personally handled hundreds of government investigations.

In litigation, during the discovery phase, each side first goes through it's own documents to determine what is relevant to the litigation and what's non-relevant. Relevant documents are then examined for privilege. Once all that is done, we send the responsive, non-privileged documents to the other side for review. There are significant sanctions for messing with this process by doing things like intentionally designating responsive documents as non-responsive. There are further checks against designating non-privileged records as privileged.

What happened is that Clinton's legal team went through the documents, designated what is responsive, then asked for permission to delete the non-responsive documents. That permission was granted. They're not government documents, especially since they weren't sent using a government account or equipment. Nothing untoward happened as far as I'm aware.

That said, I think deleting the data was a bad idea. Personally, I would have advised that it be archived in case the discovery request changes and additional information is needed. However, I don't know what kind of sensitive personal information might have been in the data that the legal team opted instead to remove it entirely.

Going further, we have A LOT of tools to piece electronic data together. We can import all that email into a database and have it examine conversations and look for missing pieces. We can determine that we received a bunch of emails from Person B that Person A should have also had and didn't give us. There are A LOT of ways to figure out if someone is missing email that they should have had. In order for Clinton to successfully hide things, she would have to remove every piece of every conversation from every recipient. With the amount of messages and emails flying around, that's pretty much a fool's errand. It's like trying to execute the perfect murder but you inevitably leave forensic evidence behind.

The 33k emails, while I find it slightly off-putting that they were deleted, there is no overt indication that anything untoward happened.

Trump has never been accused of anything more serious than conspiracy, fraud, suborning perjury, election law violations and treason. Well, there was that child rape case but victim recanted when her life was threatened. Trump has never been convicted of assault, adultery, sodomy or pussy grabbing.

Bill Clinton, OTOH, was the notorious womanizer married to the murderous child-sex brothel operator and Witch of Benghazi. He was so deep in crime it took American hero Judge Starr six years and $60 million just to decide which felony to focus on. Unlike Mueller who has passed out warrants, indictments and convictions like a drunken pimp passing out condoms, Starr kept his cards close to his vest, refusing to waste his arrest power on any but the Criminal Mastermind himself. Finally, much against his sweet nature, this noble Judge — reminiscent of Inspector Javert, the hero of Hugo's Les Misérables — threatened innocent Miss Monica with imprisonment and forced her to flip. Yes, the dastardly villain had bespoiled one of Miss Monica's dresses and never offered to pay the dry-cleaning bill. Although it took seven years, Justice triumphed in the end; the GOP was quick to impeach this Soiler of Dresses and he was humiliated. AFAIK this skinflint has still never offered to pick up the dry-cleaning tab.

Contrast this with the sham in front of us now. Two Years investigating Dear Leader and all you got is conspiracy, obstruction, fraud and treason? Suckabee Sally won't flip even if you waterboard her. Give up, Democrats!

The 33k emails, while I find it slightly off-putting that they were deleted, there is no overt indication that anything untoward happened.

I'd just like to point out that Clinton's hesitance at having non-required / personal emails in the hands of political enemies wound up being somewhat justified given that several leaks did occur -- including, most famously, the intentional leak that the investigation was reopened at the 11th hour.

I'd just like to point out that Clinton's hesitance at having non-required / personal emails in the hands of political enemies wound up being somewhat justified given that several leaks did occur -- including, most famously, the intentional leak that the investigation was reopened at the 11th hour.

I agree that that's the most likely reason. If they're non-government emails, and not directly tied to any valid discovery request, then nobody needs to see them. However, if there was a hubbub about it, she could have hired an independent legal firm or forensic examiner to examine the records and deliver a report on whether anything was withheld.

And after typing that out, I realize that nothing would ever make the people happy that are convinced that she's broken the law somehow. So maybe her action was the best of a bunch of bad options.

I agree that that's the most likely reason. If they're non-government emails, and not directly tied to any valid discovery request, then nobody needs to see them. However, if there was a hubbub about it, she could have hired an independent legal firm or forensic examiner to examine the records and deliver a report on whether anything was withheld.

And after typing that out, I realize that nothing would ever make the people happy that are convinced that she's broken the law somehow. So maybe her action was the best of a bunch of bad options.

That's the rub. Clinton probably didn't handle the situation ABSOLUTELY perfectly. But that's not the criteria things are rationally judged by. The right-wing effort to insist "where there's smoke, there's fire" and then portray every damn wisp in the air as a column of smoke...yeah. Ugh.

That's the rub. Clinton probably didn't handle the situation ABSOLUTELY perfectly. But that's not the criteria things are rationally judged by. The right-wing effort to insist "where there's smoke, there's fire" and then portray every damn wisp in the air as a column of smoke...yeah. Ugh.

... while simultaneously ignoring the growing horror show inferno on their own side of the fence. Yeah. An inexpressible number of ughs.

And after typing that out, I realize that nothing would ever make the people happy that are convinced that she's broken the law somehow. So maybe her action was the best of a bunch of bad options.

Yeah, just look at the furor over the Uranium 1 deal: "Did you know that she had to get the approval of NINETEEN DIFFERENT REGULATORY AGENCIES!? Isn't that terrible? How could she do something like that!?"

“Due to ongoing threats against his family from President Trump and Mr. Giuliani, as recently as this weekend, as well as Mr. Cohen’s continued cooperation with ongoing investigations, by advice of counsel, Mr. Cohen’s appearance will be postponed to a later date,” Cohen’s attorney Lanny Davis said in a statement Wednesday. “This is a time where Mr. Cohen had to put his family and their safety first.”

Holy fucking shit. That's a really big accusation. A major witness in a criminal case brought forward to testify is claiming that he is postponing his testimony due to threats against his family from the person he was going to testify against. And, make no mistake, Trump has been threatening his family:

Quote:

Trump, who has called Cohen a liar and “rat,” said in a tweet on Jan. 18 that Cohen is “Lying to reduce his jail time! Watch father-in-law!"

In a Fox News interview last month, Trump said Cohen’s father-in-law “is a very rich guy, I hear.” Referring to Cohen, the president asked, “Did he make a deal to keep his father-in-law out? Did he make a deal to keep his wife, who supposedly, maybe I’m wrong, but you can check it, did he make keep -- make a deal to keep his wife out of trouble?"

From the slate article, this bit may be of note:

Quote:

“The statements by Mr. Trump and Mr. Giuliani, who have accused Mr. Cohen of lying to get a reduced sentence, would most likely amount to sufficient evidence of witness tampering, according to legal experts, though they cautioned that prosecutors would bring such a case only if they viewed the tampering as part of a larger pattern of obstructive behavior,” the New York Times reports.

A pattern? Perish the thought.

Ancient Erudite, instead of talking about a failed candidate who fell out of the public eye over two years ago, maybe you'd prefer to talk about the actual subject of this thread, i.e. the ongoing investigation into our president. How do you feel about this? Is this evidence of criminal activity to you?

...Ancient Erudite, instead of talking about a failed candidate who fell out of the public eye over two years ago, maybe you'd prefer to talk about the actual subject of this thread, i.e. the ongoing investigation into our president. How do you feel about this? Is this evidence of criminal activity to you?

Has any of the Board's Trumpettes ever addressed any of the criminal charges against the Orange Monster? (Besides usual gibberish like "Sean Hannity tells me that's Fake News.") Please Cite if they have.

Roger Stone, an eccentric longtime Republican strategist with a tattoo of Richard Nixon’s face on his back, was arrested Friday on charges that include obstruction of an official proceeding, false statements and witness tampering."

Given Ancient Erudite's strongly-held belief that lying under oath is bad, I'm sure he'll be by soon to condemn Roger Stone for doing so multiple times and for attempting to coerce another witness to do so.

__________________
According to the Anti-Defamation League, "In 2018, domestic extremists killed at least 50 people in the US, a sharp increase from the 37 extremist-related murders documented in 2017....every single extremist killing — from Pittsburgh to Parkland — had a link to right-wing extremism."

ST's vBulletin 3 Responsive Styles

Our newly refreshed styles in 2017, brings the old vb3 to the new level, responsive and modern feel. It comes with 3 colors with or without sidebar, fixed sized or fluid. Default vbulletin 3 style made responsive also available in the pack.
Purchase Our Style Pack Now